CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, TVM. Vs. LEKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two appeals preferred against the order passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Idukki, Peermade in E.C.C. No. 25/2014 (W.C.C. No. 92/2002). M.F.A. No. 31/2017 is filed by the first opposite party and M.F.A. No. 4/2016 is filed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The proceedings were initiated on the application made by the legal heirs of one deceased V. S. Venugopala Pillai, on account of his death while he was engaged in painting work in a Post Office building situated in Peermade. Admittedly, the second and third opposite parties entrusted the work with the first opposite party, who is a Contractor under the second and third opposite parties. While the painting work was going on, one of the workers / employees engaged by the first opposite party, fell down from the first floor of the said building and succumbed to the injuries, which has resulted in a compensation application by the legal heirs.

(2.) The Employees Compensation Commissioner, on consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties, passed the impugned order by which Rs.3,62,740.00, besides Rs.2,500.00 for meeting funeral expenses, with 12% interest per annum was granted to the legal heirs of the deceased by holding that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are principally liable to compensate the legal heirs of the victim, with a rider that the second and third opposite parties can recover the said amount from the first opposite party. Aggrieved by the said order, the respective opposite parties came up with these two appeals.

(3.) The main contention raised by the second and third opposite parties is by disputing the status of the victim as an employee under them. It is submitted that he was not a departmental employee and as such, no liability can be cast upon the second and third opposite parties. But, at the same time, they admitted that the work of painting of the building, wherein the Post Office was functioning, was entrusted with the first opposite party on a contractual basis. The first opposite party also took a contention that the deceased was not an employee arranged or employed by the first opposite party, and, as such, no liability can be cast upon either the first opposite party or the second and third opposite parties. It was also inter alia contended by the first opposite party that if at all any liability is found, the second and third opposite parties are principally liable to compensate the victim as they are the principal employers.